[fash]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

corporatist (good or bad, that is a position on the right)

It's a stretch to call corporatism a position of the right. Capitalism, sure, but not corporatism. Bank and fiat regulations that select for crony capitalism and socializing risks for too-big-to-fail banks/Wall Street fall on the left side of economic freedoms.

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No, I'd prefer things to just stay as they are actually, but in an environment of increasing authoritarianism, no, I would not want a shift further to the right because then that just results in a super corporation controlling all wealth and using the formidable arm of government to destroy opposition.

My point there was that in the context of a large government that the left can control, it's unreasonable to expect things to stay as they are. A shift toward larger government is the outcome in that context. A "massive shift to the left" is jumping out of the frying pan & into the fire.

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No it isn't ^^ I'm not talking about the American political party, I'm talking about Libertarianism as the antithesis of Authoritarianism. Here's an example of what I was talking about: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

I wasn't talking about US's Libertarian party either. I was referring to left libertarianism e.g. libertarian socialism, anarcho-communism (libertarian communism), anarcho-collectivism, anarcho-syndicalism.. any of those non-vanguardist collective doctrines or egalitarian ideologies that don't understand economics.

Originally Posted by Nihilist_santa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Ive thought it would be interesting to have as your government a class of people who are not allowed to own property or amass wealth but have all of their needs taken care of by the state. It could be a possible hedge against the ability to buy influence. This is similar to Platos idea of the silver class of auxiliaries but not quite or some could even say party members in 1984 unlike the proles who were allowed to be degenerates.

Interesting, but does this do anything besides save you some time in a democratic government? When they want more gibs, they'll burn down cities. When they want to vote, they'll martyr for publicity and plant bombs.